|
Originally Posted by Small cog
(Post 23711620)
I see it everyday here in India where I am on a bicycle tour, people, usually men gracefully travelling along at a very steady cadence on their single speed roadsters with 46 tooth chainrings and 19 tooth freewheels. It has been the same in every country I have visited in the past four months, Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, locally made replicas of the Raleigh Sports, identical in every detail down to the fork crowns and apparently all parts interchangeable with the original.
They are all 22" frames but some have 26" wheels and some 28", for some reason nobody has the seat post correctly set, they just leave them right down in the tube and have very bent knees at the top of the pedal stroke which makes me cringe. Some of the names are familiar, Hercules, BSA even Raleigh but most are Hero or Avon and some are unbranded but still identical. Each country has its own locally produced models such as Lumala in Sri Lanka and the Chinese brand Flying Pidgeon is the same, these bikes are still the work horse of the world. 46x19 is a 65" gear if you have 27" wheels. If you have a 26" wheel, it's a 63" gear (effective wheel size). That sounds entirely reasonable to me. I think of a moderate gear as between 65 and 75 inches. My fixed gear bike for city and fun riding is at 74". Back in the days of when these bikes were designed, they didn't imagine (or were unable to make) a bike with gears low enough to pedal up very difficult hills. Walking the bike was normal. In fact, it was normal even when I was a kid. I think it would not be a shame if cyclists these days walked up a few hills instead of insisting on a bike with granny gears. |
Originally Posted by noglider
(Post 23711767)
I've seen some of those bikes made in India and China. They use softer metal, and the nuts and bolts tend to strip. At least that's how it was when I was a bike shop mechanic. Maybe they've improved?
46x19 is a 65" gear if you have 27" wheels. If you have a 26" wheel, it's a 63" gear (effective wheel size). That sounds entirely reasonable to me. I think of a moderate gear as between 65 and 75 inches. My fixed gear bike for city and fun riding is at 74". Back in the days of when these bikes were designed, they didn't imagine (or were unable to make) a bike with gears low enough to pedal up very difficult hills. Walking the bike was normal. In fact, it was normal even when I was a kid. I think it would not be a shame if cyclists these days walked up a few hills instead of insisting on a bike with granny gears. I live in a hilly area and like low gearing although I have no problem getting off and pushing, my 3 speeds whether with 26 or 27 inch wheels have 36 tooth chainrings and 24 tooth sprockets, I have never had a hub fail but I only weigh 140 lbs. |
Made some changes to the Sports this afternoon.
I swapped the stock bar & stem & grips for a set of no-name aluminum North Roads, a 100mm Kalloy riser, and a used pair of Body Geometry grips. Also, the perpetually-slipping, never-to-be-sufficiently-damned steel seatpost & clamp are gone. Black alloy one-bolt Kalloy now doing Brooks-holding duties. No pix yet, I only rode around the block to dial in the fit. Fenders make getting a straight stem way harder than it should be. You pretty much have to do it by feel, which means you have to iteratively ride it wrong and then adjust it. Incorrectly. Took me like 4 laps to get it right. That said, I'm diggin' the feelz. It feels as if the extra width, (which would slow the steering,) and the longer stem, (which would slow it,) cancel each other out, leaving the lighter weight to lighten up the steering feel. If that makes any sense to anyone but me. Tomorrow will be a longer ride...we'll see if I like the changes as much as I think I will. --Shannon |
Originally Posted by jackbombay
(Post 23711521)
A while back I read that many many years ago pedalling at a high cadence was considered undignified, this was something written/released by Raleigh if my memory is correct. Its really a shame as the absurd gearing they put on millions of 3 speeds made them kind of unbearable, doomed to a life lived almost entirely in 1st gear, and walked up hills. The same document/article said that higher cadence was acceptable for racing though... Sometimes when I'm riding my sturmey equipped bikes I put them in 3rd at 10 miles an hour and think to myself "I am so dignified right now.".
It is still nice to ride Roadsters and Sports. On less sporty trips they are great. One of my great memories is visiting my uncle and riding to his fishing spot on a stream. He had a pair of Raleigh Sports that we used. It was a little hilly getting there and back and that bike was a revelation. I was used to Schwinn Typhoon. Perhaps this is why I have a sweet spot for English three speeds. And even American three speeds. ShannonM that bike is looking great. |
Originally Posted by Velo Mule
(Post 23712117)
It is a good point. Times have changed. The English upright bike was meant to mimic the riding style of a horseman. Back straight up, all weight on the saddle. Not the racing style, by the way.
It is still nice to ride Roadsters and Sports. On less sporty trips they are great. One of my great memories is visiting my uncle and riding to his fishing spot on a stream. He had a pair of Raleigh Sports that we used. It was a little hilly getting there and back and that bike was a revelation. I was used to Schwinn Typhoon. Perhaps this is why I have a sweet spot for English three speeds. And even American three speeds. ShannonM that bike is looking great. To be honest, it's mostly as-bought. The Carradice and Brooks, (which should totally be the name of a pub for Anglophillic bike dorks,) were the only things I've added in the pictures above. This will be rectified tomorrow, although the new adds aren't super obvious. And I fully concur as to ride... it's a nice-enough-riding bike that a to-the-tape recreation, but with standard-gauge butted tubing, would be a very neat thing. Like if Raleigh had built an all-531 DB 'Super Sports' with alloy parts. --Shannon |
Originally Posted by ShannonM
(Post 23712101)
Fenders make getting a straight stem way harder than it should be. You pretty much have to do it by feel, which means you have to iteratively ride it wrong and then adjust it. Incorrectly. Took me like 4 laps to get it right.--Shannon
It has to be flat against both fork tubes. Then stand over the front wheel and look down to see where the bar ends are relative to the ruler. |
Originally Posted by Velo Mule
(Post 23712117)
It is a good point. Times have changed. The English upright bike was meant to mimic the riding style of a horseman. Back straight up, all weight on the saddle. Not the racing style, by the way.
Originally Posted by Velo Mule
(Post 23712117)
It is still nice to ride Roadsters and Sports. On less sporty trips they are great.
|
The description of the bike “sweeping” through turns is actually pretty typical of the Sports geometry. Those frames run fairly high trail (from the head angle, fork rake, and the 650A wheels), and Raleigh paired that with a short stem and relatively narrow swept bars. Keeping the hands close to the steering axis limits leverage so the self-centering effect of the trail can do most of the stabilizing.
That setup also keeps the rider fairly upright and centered over the bike, so most steering happens with small wrist movements rather than larger arm or shoulder inputs. Once you lengthen the stem and widen the bars, you increase steering leverage and move the rider’s weight forward, so the bike becomes more rider-driven rather than geometry-driven. Instead of the geometry doing most of the stabilizing, the rider ends up doing more of the work. That’s not necessarily wrong if the goal is a more modern hybrid feel, but it does move the bike away from the balance of its original design. |
Originally Posted by wildOG
(Post 23712329)
The description of the bike “sweeping” through turns is actually pretty typical of the Sports geometry. Those frames run fairly high trail (from the head angle, fork rake, and the 650A wheels), and Raleigh paired that with a short stem and relatively narrow swept bars. Keeping the hands close to the steering axis limits leverage so the self-centering effect of the trail can do most of the stabilizing.
That setup also keeps the rider fairly upright and centered over the bike, so most steering happens with small wrist movements rather than larger arm or shoulder inputs. Once you lengthen the stem and widen the bars, you increase steering leverage and move the rider’s weight forward, so the bike becomes more rider-driven rather than geometry-driven. Instead of the geometry doing most of the stabilizing, the rider ends up doing more of the work. That’s not necessarily wrong if the goal is a more modern hybrid feel, but it does move the bike away from the balance of its original design. I'm just way more comfortable... the OG cockpit was just too small. (I'm 5' 11" and built like a tree. My waist & pants size are the same... I basically don't have hips.) The cool thing is that, for whatever weirdo, planetary alignment, the-moon's-in-Sagittarius-in-the-9-3/4th-house reasons, I didn't have to give anything up to get it. (Other than a tenner to the co-op for the stem, of course. TANSTAAFL.) --Shannon |
I put 21 flat miles into the Sports today. An extension of the route along the South Bay lagoons that I did the other day.
The Sports continues to impress, at least within its niche. Just a sweet-handling, good-looking, great-riding bike. The newer, wider, longer, lighter cockpit is, as described above, pretty much all upside. Yeah, the bars aren't particularly attractive, but that won't matter once I've regripped & relevered them, and then taped & twined them to the stem. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...7bc3053202.jpg https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...e160dd1689.jpg https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...6d512bbf4a.jpg https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...86c61404f3.jpg https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...42f0aa6ad2.jpg Got to find a matching chainguard, but that can wait. (And aluminum rims, but that can wait even longer!) --Shannon |
Originally Posted by ShannonM
(Post 23712539)
Righto! As least, that's how it's supposed to work. The weird thing here is that the steering didn't change much. If anything, it's a touch lighter at the bars. All of the swoopy dirt-surfer feel is still there... I can still fully ride the bike with just my fingertips.
I'm just way more comfortable... the OG cockpit was just too small. (I'm 5' 11" and built like a tree. My waist & pants size are the same... I basically don't have hips.) The cool thing is that, for whatever weirdo, planetary alignment, the-moon's-in-Sagittarius-in-the-9-3/4th-house reasons, I didn't have to give anything up to get it. (Other than a tenner to the co-op for the stem, of course. TANSTAAFL.) --Shannon Your 100 mm stem angling up looks better than what I had pictured — like the one I took off my Colnago that angles slightly down. Your Sports is looking good. |
Originally Posted by wildOG
(Post 23712807)
Your 100 mm stem angling up looks better than what I had pictured — like the one I took off my Colnago that angles slightly down. Your Sports is looking good.
--Shannon |
I've been wanting to basketize the Sports, because if there are bikes that beg for baskets, this is one of those bikes.
So I cut the basket off of the front rack on the PPPKN-10, and used the Jack the Bike Rack to attach it to the handlebars of the Raleigh. This was not a win. First, it screwed up the steering feel, which is one of the things I like most about the bike. It didn't make the bike handle badly, it just didn't feel good anymore. Second, and worse, when I put the bike on the kickstand, (which may already be too short... the bike tilts a lot,) the front end would now flop over hard enough to drop the bike on the floor. I might try to mount it on the V/O rack from the Peugeot, on the theory that lower is better is less floppier... haven't decided yet. First think I'm-a gonna do is pop over to the Ginormous 3-Speed Thread and figure out if a basket on a Sports is even a good idea. It sure would be nice if it can work. --Shannon |
Originally Posted by ShannonM
(Post 23714591)
when I put the bike on the kickstand, (which may already be too short... the bike tilts a lot,) the front end would now flop over hard enough to drop the bike on the floor.
If you want the bike stable with the basket loaded, consider a two-sided kickstand. I have a heavy-duty one on my grocery-getter but there are lightweight aluminum ones too, where both legs fold up under the left chainstay, with a clever mechanism. Like this: https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...0757868df4.jpg I don't know if that's a good one, it's just the first image I got in a search just now. On mine, the right leg folds under the right chainstay. That's "drive side" for those of you with trouble telling right from left. ;) That has the advantage that I can put it down no matter which side I'm standing on. I don't know the brand, it's got no logo and I got it used at Recycled Cycles. Heavier than the nice Esge/Pletscher alloy style, but it's very stable. |
IMO, and only humbly offered, something smaller is needed for your Sports. The basket and Jack the Rack are too big.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...b5627fea59.jpg Also, aesthetically it does not compliment the large "trunk" bag under the seat. Unfortunately, I have nothing "off the shelf" to offer as an alternative. My creative juices are flowing and I'm thinking something which utilizes the Crane headlamp mounting bracket as one attachment point. Probably stays to the fork eyelets would be the other attachment points. I think I would build a tray out of 1/4 thick birch plywood. Possibly 12x8x6 inches and fit it with a canvas or leather liner that closes at the top and is easily removed. Add tie-down loops on the corners for one of those small elastic cargo nets for oversized loads. Just my two cents. :innocent: |
I will agree with bulgie as to the sturdiness of that style centre-stand. I use one on our Norco tandem with vintage Willy & Max saddlebags off an old Sportster. Probably tanks in at about 60 pounds empty, and that stand holds it up in everything except windy days.
|
Originally Posted by ShannonM
(Post 23712539)
Righto! As least, that's how it's supposed to work. The weird thing here is that the steering didn't change much. If anything, it's a touch lighter at the bars. All of the swoopy dirt-surfer feel is still there... I can still fully ride the bike with just my fingertips.
I'm just way more comfortable... the OG cockpit was just too small. (I'm 5' 11" and built like a tree. My waist & pants size are the same... I basically don't have hips.) The cool thing is that, for whatever weirdo, planetary alignment, the-moon's-in-Sagittarius-in-the-9-3/4th-house reasons, I didn't have to give anything up to get it. (Other than a tenner to the co-op for the stem, of course. TANSTAAFL.) --Shannon With the low leverage steering on a Sports, the self-centering from trail does most of the stabilizing. Add a basket and the steering gets heavier, but the geometry is still doing a lot of the work. If you go longer stem + wider bars, you increase leverage quite a bit. That shifts the balance—now the rider is overriding the geometry more, and the added weight out front makes that more noticeable. If a longer stem is needed for fit, one way to keep the original feel is narrower bars or more sweep rather than wider bars. That helps offset the added leverage which lets the bike self-correct. |
Because of what wildOG says, it might be OK to have a small basket on the handlebars but not if it carries much weight. I like front luggage but my Raleighs don't.
I used to commute on a Motobécane Mirage. I noticed it became happy when I loaded up a handlebar bag on that bike. I guess he's right about the difference between French and English bikes. I honestly can't see the difference with my eyes, but I can feel it. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:20 PM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.